In this article, we argue that the religious governance in Croatia was shaped by the specific position that was given to the Catholic Church in Croatia as the historical and moral guardian of the ...Croatian people. We describe how the fusion of religious and national identity occurred and how it was connected to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the political party that governed Croatia in the 1990s, as well as the relationship between the state and minority religious communities. The article also deals with the issue of whether religious nationalism, which is very strong at the levels of society and national self-consciousness, played any role in the governance of religious diversity and how it has influenced social movements that have reconfigured mutual recognition of different religious communities in Croatia.
U ovom radu bavim se argumentom za promjenu gradskih politika koje bi omogućile pristup smislenoj dokolici svim građanima, posebno onima koji se nalaze u najnepovoljnijem položaju. Kao ...najnepovoljnije stojeći pripadnici društva u kontekstu ovog rada određeni su oni pojedinci koji imaju nizak dohodak i poslove koji nisu kreativni, te otežanu mogućnost kreativne stimulacije i u domeni izvan radnog mjesta. Argumenti za kreativan/smislen posao, koji proizlaze iz teorija Johna Rawlsa i Marthe Nussbaum, mogu poslužiti i kao argumenti za kreativnu/smislenu dokolicu. Pri tome, gradovi imaju veću slobodu u promicanju određenog načina života nego što to imaju države. U radu se argumentira da gradske politike trebaju promicati barem smislenu dokolicu budući da mogućnost smislenog posla ovisi velikim dijelom o osnovnoj strukturi cijelog društva.
O javnom umu i načelu razlike Zelič, Nebojša
Filozofska istraživanja,
12/2023, Letnik:
43, Številka:
3
Journal Article, Web Resource
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Jedno je od važnih pitanja interpretacije Rawlsove filozofije ono o povezanosti dvaju problema o kojima je pisao cijeli svoj život – pravednost i legitimnost. U ovom radu kao posebnost Rawlsove ...teorije pravednosti uzimam načelo razlike, dok kao poseban aspekt njegove teorije legitimnosti uzimam ideju javnog uma, te pokušavam pokazati da su oba aspekta povezana, odnosno da ih ne trebamo gledati kao dva odvojena projekta. Pokušavam pokazati da bismo opravdanje načela razlike trebali oblikovati kao opravdanje određenog socio-ekonomskog uređenje prije nego kao apstraktno načelo, ono koje je bolje od drugih legitimnih uređenja. Za Rawlsa su demokracija vlasničkog tipa (engl. property-owning democracy) i liberalni socijalizam (engl. liberal socialism) ona socio-ekonomska uređenja koja realiziraju načelo razlike. Glavna je razlika između ta dva sustava ta što je u prvom dopušteno privatno vlasništvo nad sredstvima za proizvodnju, ali je ono široko disperzirano. U ovom radu pokušavam pokazati na koji način takav sustav može biti javno opravdan. Opravdanje koje pri tome trebamo koristiti upravo je ono koje Rawls oblikuje kroz ideju javnog uma, pozivanjem na političke vrijednosti sadržane u našoj javnoj političkoj kulturi.
One of the important questions in the interpretation of Rawls’s philosophy is the connection between the two problems he wrote about throughout his life – justice and legitimacy. In this paper, I take the difference principle as a special feature of Rawls’s theory of justice, while I take the idea of the public reason as a special aspect of his theory of legitimacy, and I try to show that both aspects are connected, that is, that we should not see them as two separate projects. I am trying to show that we should formulate the justification of the difference principle as a justification of a particular socio-economic arrangement rather than as an abstract principle, one that is better than other legitimate arrangements. For Rawls, property-owning democracy and liberal socialism are socio-economic arrangements that realize the difference principle. The main difference between the two systems is that in the first one, private ownership of the means of production is allowed, but it is widely dispersed. In this paper, I try to show how such a system can be publicly justified. The justification that we need to use is precisely the one that Rawls formulates through the idea of the public mind, by referring to the political values contained in our public political culture.
In his The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits Christiano defends an idea that democracy has authority because it realizes public equality. According to Christiano, for ...realization of public equality there is no need for any restriction on the content of reasons we offer each other to justify laws and policies. In this paper I try to show that there are good reasons to think that boundaries of public reason can more deeply realize public equality in plural society and I also try to defend this view from some criticisms given by Christiano in his book.
This paper brings together the discussions on international resource trade and immigration. Following Wenar's analysis of the resource curse, the aim is to challenge the conventional view on ...immigration that asserts the right of states to have discretionary control over these policies. The paper shows that more liberal immigration is required as an additional remedial policy to persons harmed in unjust trade. The right to self-determination and territorial rights, which are used as the basis for the exclusion of immigrants, are in the context of this analysis constrained by both attentiveness to harm and the charge of inconsistency. Both rights, which are protected domestically, are violated by the unjust 'might makes right' trade rule in the international context, causing harm to people in resource exporting countries. This inconsistency presents a challenge to the moral plausibility of the conventional view in the context of the resource trade.
Rawlsian idea of public reason refers to the boundaries on political justification of coercive laws and public policies that have wide impact on lives of citizens. The boundaries of public reason ...means that political justification should be based on reasons we can expect every citizen can reasonably accept independently of any comprehensive religious, philosophical or moral doctrine to which she adhere. In modern liberal democracies characterized by reasonable pluralism of comprehensive doctrines it is unjustified for political argumentation to be based on claims that many citizens can not accept. As I understand it, the point of idea of public reason is to strengthen the relationship of civic trust or civic friendship that can ensure inherent stability of just political regime. An important part of the idea of public reason is how it incorporates scientific claims in political argumentation. Rawls writes that citizens are to base their public justification on „presently accepted general beliefs and forms of reasoning found in common sense, and the methods and conclusions of science when those are not controversial.“ If the idea of public reason is the source of political stability it is necessary to answer what it means that conclusions of science are controversial in political and social context? First, scientific controversy is different from controversy of comprehensive doctrines. Science stands outside of comprehensive doctrines so conclusions of science will not be controversial because they clash with comprehensive beliefs, but they will be controversial if they rely on comprehensive beliefs. Second, if conclusions of science are controversial within scientific community, if there are some expert witness disputing its validity, then maybe value-judgments can enter to set standards for certification of the scientific claim. If potential consequences of scientific claim are bad for welfare of some group in society than standards of evidence that will certify this claim must go up. Finally, even if some scientific claim has been certified it still can be controversial as a premise in political justification. The reason can be that certification has not been transparent and many citizens do not realize that this claim is part of scientific consensus. Again, the criterion for controversy of scientific conclusions in political context is connected to the notion of trust and not to the validity of scientific claim or supportive evidence by itself.
This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of affiliation by developing a contextually sensitive mid-level theory comprising specific elements, layers, and factors of affiliation. Vulnerable ...groups are a locus of analysis because they are particularly sensitive to various forms of social exclusion or non-affiliation. A binary study of persons with physical disability and treated alcoholics in Croatia was conducted by focus group interviewing. Through thematic analysis, six different code patterns were detected-solidarity affiliation, identity affiliation, alcoholism affiliation, disability affiliation, disability exclusion, and alcoholism exclusion-that represent key respondents' narratives on belonging. Crucial findings stress how vulnerable groups ground affiliation mostly in elements of solidarity rather than in terms of identity, how layers of affiliation (social and associational affiliation) are not so clearly differentiated but still deepen insights on affiliation, and how important factors enhancing affiliation are personal virtues which are not so prominent in theory. Therefore, the role of political institutions supporting affiliation as a meta-capability should be primarily set on solidarity affiliation, should nourish various layers of affiliation, and should be supported by citizens who care about their fellow citizens, especially those from vulnerable groups.
Građansko prijateljstvo je zanemarena tema u raspravama o političkom liberalizmu. Tek su se nedavno pojavile neke rasprave vezane uz interpretaciju javnog uma kao građanskog prijateljstva iako je ...Rawls tu poveznicu vrlo jasno naznačio. U ovom radu pokušavam pronaći mjesto za ideju građanskog prijateljstva u razvoju Rawlsove misli. Pokušavam pokazati da je građansko prijateljstvo vezano uz ideju društva koju Rawls daje u Teoriji pravednosti i Političkom liberalizmu. Ako ozbiljno shvatimo javni um kao građansko prijateljstvo, onda to može imati određene implikacije za demokraciju. Možda je moguće jasnije naznačiti domenu i ulogu javnog uma u demokratskom društvu. Također, ozbiljno shvaćanje ideje građanskog prijateljstva vodi nas izvan legitimnosti i uvodi u pitanje pravednosti jer Rawls u Teoriji pravednosti upravo u svom načelu razlike vidi mjesto za građansko prijateljstvo. Ne možemo građansko prijateljstvo temeljiti samo na pitanju demokratske rasprave već trebaju biti zadovoljeni i pravedni pozadinski uvjeti.
In his The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits Christiano defends an idea that democracy has authority because it realizes public equality. According to Christiano, for ...realization of public equality there is no need for any restriction on the content of reasons we offer each other to justify laws and policies. In this paper I try to show that there are good reasons to think that boundaries of public reason can more deeply realize public equality in plural society and I also try to defend this view from some criticisms given by Christiano in his book.
PDF
